Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

 Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This article focuses specifically on individualism is detrimental to solidarity.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

(2-1) Coercive division of Labor

Examples: Cases in which role allocation is enforced based on gender, race, or physical appearance, such as caste systems and class-based systems.

Coercive division of Labor is discussed in relation to the belief in equality. When individuals are unable to obtain a division of labor that corresponds to their abilities, and when they perceive themselves as being compelled into a form of labor that contradicts the ideal of equality under the assumption that equality is socially desirable, that division of labor becomes forced.

Even if a division of labor appears forced from an external perspective, it may not be considered forced if the individual believes that it is appropriate to their own abilities. However, making such a determination is not straightforward.

For example, hereditary traditional performing arts, farming households, or political families are often perceived by others as situations in which roles are imposed; however, in some cases, the individuals themselves genuinely wish to pursue these roles.

Religious caste systems are particularly difficult to evaluate. Moreover, while we tend to assume that social equality is a universal ideal that should apply to all societies, there may be societies that do not share this ideal. In such cases, on what grounds can we justify judging these societies as simply backward, inferior, or underdeveloped?

Such a line of thinking may itself be a form of ethnocentrism.

Alternatively, as the philosopher Michel Foucault suggests, it can also be understood as a case in which individuals are shaped by social structures that induce voluntary submission. In light of this, it becomes necessary to reconsider what is meant by human agency, subjectivity, and free will.

If individuals find value in a role as appropriate to themselves and alternative options are genuinely available, it may be possible to judge that the division of labor is not forced.

However, if a person’s will and sense of agency have been shaped or controlled by their surrounding environment since early childhood, such a judgment becomes considerably more complex.

From this perspective, the issue connects to the ideas of the psychologist Alfred Adler, who argued that an individual’s personality pattern (lifestyle) is largely formed in early childhood. This is often expressed proverbially as “the soul of a three-year-old lasts until one hundred.”

Accordingly, it is necessary to consider, as part of a broader analytical framework, what counts as an individual’s will and under what conditions a division of labor should be regarded as forced.

The abnormality of Coercive division of Labor lies in the fact that it does not generate social solidarity; in other words, it does not contribute to social integration, although this may be a matter of degree.

When individuals engage in a division of labor while perceiving it as imposed by social forces rather than chosen voluntarily, social solidarity is less likely to emerge.

In an extreme case, such as a society formed by gathering slaves, social solidarity is unlikely to emerge, and an atmosphere of tension and conflict tends to prevail.

In a more contemporary context, when immigrants are unable to obtain stable or desirable employment and feel that they are confined to low-paid, routine labor, this can also undermine social solidarity.

At the same time, even when immigrants come to obtain higher-paying jobs, this may still have negative implications for social solidarity at the level of society as a whole. Evaluating such outcomes as positive or negative is not straightforward when viewed from a broader perspective.

Thus, it is not sufficient to assume that any form of division of labor is acceptable; rather, it is important to establish an appropriate and normal division of labor, and achieving this balance is inherently difficult.

Émile Durkheim is characterized by an orientation that places importance on what is commonly referred to as meritocracy.

Meritocracy is a term that means a social and organizational principle in which evaluation and rewards are determined based on an individual’s abilities and achievements. Accordingly, it is essential that individuals are not prevented, by any kind of barrier, from attaining a social position that corresponds to their abilities within the social framework.

For example, a view such as “not hiring someone because of their race” would be considered contrary to meritocracy. But what if one were presented with seemingly objective statistical data about different racial groups?

Even in such cases, there is a risk of committing the ecological fallacy identified by William S. Robinson, that is, the error of attributing characteristics of a group to individual members.

Suppose that in a certain region, a rise in criminal activity among foreign nationals from a particular country has recently become a social issue.

Now imagine that, at a given company, a foreign applicant who has entered the country legally, whose background indicates no significant differences in ability or conduct compared to others, and who is in fact superior to other candidates, comes for an interview.

If one were the interviewer, would one hire this applicant? If not, would such a decision be based on a justifiable reason?

More broadly, on what grounds do we criticize people of other races, or refrain from assisting them simply because they belong to a different racial group?

This issue is also related to what is commonly referred to as nationalism. In a broader sense, it may be understood as a form of egoism in which the nation is conceived as if it were a single person.

For example, whether the current actions of Russia should be interpreted as a form of egoism, or whether they are leading toward self-destruction, is not something I can determine. However, such cases may offer useful insights for thinking through these kinds of real-world problems.

According to the sociologist Yusuke Maki, the poet Kenji Miyazawa was a figure who sought to liberate the self.

A stance of living solely for oneself is referred to as egoism. At the same time, human beings are sexual beings and thus capable of loving others; in this sense, they are also beings who live for those they love.

However, even the attitude of living not only for oneself but for a loved other can be understood as an expanded form of egoism. This is because it can give rise to hostility, indifference, or jealousy toward those outside the circle of loved others.

This applies not only to romantic relationships between two individuals, but also to relationships such as the family or the nation. It is an attitude in which attacks on one’s partner or fellow nationals are felt as attacks on oneself, and in which one’s own group is regarded as taking priority.

Religion can be understood as an attempt to overcome this form of egoism grounded in sexuality, insofar as it creates relationships that transcend particular nations.

However, religion can also generate indifference or hostility toward those who belong to different religions; in this sense, religion itself can likewise be regarded as a form of expanded egoism.

The poet Kenji Miyazawa is said to have avoided loving any particular individual and even refrained from adhering to religion. Whether such a liberation of the self is possible within the constraints of real social frameworks is unclear.

However, it may be reasonable to argue that some mechanism is necessary to maintain a balance so that egoism does not become excessive.

(2-2) Anomic Division of Labor

Examples: Conflict between labor and capital, and excessive fragmentation of occupations.

The difference in emphasis regarding anomie lies in the fact that, in The Division of Labor in Society by Émile Durkheim, the focus is on a state in which differentiated social functions are not integrated, whereas in Suicide, the emphasis is on the mismatch between the expansion of desires and social norms brought about by rapid social change.

Both the problem of too little freedom (excessive regulation) and the problem of too much freedom (insufficient regulation) are identified, and they share a common feature in the breakdown of balance.

In both cases, the issue can be understood in terms of desire: desires are either excessively suppressed or excessively expanded, resulting in a state of frustration. This is particularly related to the intensification of aspirations toward equality.

(The Division of Labor in Society) Inequitable regulation refers to cases in which social inequality unjustly suppresses individual desires, leading to social unrest and conflict.

It is argued that such unequal regulation should be weakened, or that regulation aimed at correcting inequality should be strengthened.

(Suicide) Expansion of desires refers to situations in which social norms weaken, individual desires expand excessively, and this leads to feelings of powerlessness and despair, ultimately contributing to an increase in suicide rates.

It is argued that regulation should be strengthened in order to appropriately restrain individual desires.

Importance of norms: Social norms function to regulate individual desires in a balanced manner and to maintain social order. When regulation is either too strong or too weak, abnormal forms are more likely to emerge.

Under such conditions, what Karl Marx termed alienation tends to advance, while in the framework of Émile Durkheim, society is more likely to fall into a state of anomie. In contemporary society, what proportion of people are actually engaged in work that provides a genuinely intrinsic sense of fulfillment?

This also relates to the words of Morris Berman: “How many of us perceive ourselves as whole beings? Is it not the case that we play roles assigned by society and, wandering through intricate rituals and games of interaction, diligently weave a false self?”

In short, this points to the attenuation of what he calls “participatory consciousness.”

The sociologist Michio Nakajima presents the conflict between labor and capital as an example of anomic division of labor, whereas Masachi Osawa discusses it as class struggle within the framework of Coercive division of Labor.

If anomie is defined as a state in which differentiated social functions are not integrated, then class struggle can be understood as a condition in which the two functions of labor and capital are not integrated, and thus it fits within anomic division of labor.

At the same time, if wage laborers perceive their position as unequal and experienced as imposed or constraining, it can also be understood as Coercive division of Labor. In this sense, the two are closely related and may coexist simultaneously.

The commonality between anomic division of labor and Coercive division of Labor can be understood in terms of their relation to the belief in equality. Let us consider a simplified formulation.

Class struggle can be interpreted as arising from the belief in equality and the gap between that belief and social reality.

But how does this belief in equality relate to abnormal forms of division of labor characterized primarily by instability caused by economic crises or by feelings of alienation resulting from the excessive fragmentation of occupations?

For example, when many people experience downward mobility due to an economic crisis, they may become dissatisfied with their social position, and the belief in equality may become more salient.

Similarly, when occupational roles become highly fragmented, individuals may come to feel that they ought, in principle, to be engaged in more meaningful work, thereby heightening their awareness of the ideal of equality.

That said, Coercive division of Labor is, comparatively speaking, more appropriately illustrated by the conflict between labor and capital. This is because the aspiration toward equality tends to be transformed not into a sense of powerlessness, but into a kind of active force or hope.

What is emphasized here is not the absence of proper regulation, but the presence of improper regulation and its constraining character.

In contrast, in the case of anomic division of labor, the emphasis is on the absence of appropriate regulation, and the resulting condition is closer to powerlessness and anxiety than to an active force.

In any case, what they share is an aspiration toward equality, and, as Émile Durkheim assumed, both can lead to social disintegration, dysfunction, and disorder.

This may be an oversimplification, but it has been illustrated in a diagram for reference.

Rather than a simple dichotomy, more complex configurations of abnormal division of labor may also exist.

For example, there may be cases in which individuals are negatively affected by an economic crisis, are engaged in highly fragmented occupations, and at the same time participate in class struggle.

In such situations, it is necessary to analyze them on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with the specific social conditions involved.

(2-3) Is the conflict between labor and capital abnormal?

Many scholars are critical of Émile Durkheim for classifying the conflict between labor and capital as “abnormal.”

For example, the sociologist Masachi Osawa argues that “the distinction between normal and abnormal division of labor is conceptually subtle.”

In contrast, Karl Marx regarded class struggle as a “normal” condition, whereas Durkheim viewed it as “abnormal.” Osawa illustrates this difference with the apt metaphor of “two people looking at a gray painting, one saying ‘Isn’t it white?’ while the other says ‘No, isn’t it black?’” This analogy has a distinctly phenomenological quality.

This will be discussed in detail in Suicide, but Masachi Osawa also considers the distinction between “egoistic suicide” and “anomic suicide” to be subtle. For this reason, the distinction between Coercive division of Labor and anomic division of labor may likewise be regarded as ambiguous.

Interpreting something “gray” as either black or white can be understood, in the sense of Karl Mannheim, as relying on what is called ideology. In the terms of Émile Durkheim, this corresponds to collective consciousness (collective representations).

For example, the sociologist Hideaki Omura raises the point that Durkheim’s classification of division of labor into “normal” and “abnormal” goes beyond mere observation and involves value judgment.

The question then arises: on what basis is a division of labor characterized by conflict between labor and capital classified as “abnormal”? Such judgments are shaped by the relative value systems of each society, and it is argued that there is no objective standard that allows “normal” and “abnormal” to be determined as matters of fact beyond such socially conditioned perspectives.

Émile Durkheim argued with regard to “crime” that it cannot be defined as such by any objective content other than what collective consciousness designates as crime/non-crime.

In a similar way, it can be asked whether the conflict between labor and capital can also be classified as normal/abnormal without relying on any objective criteria. The same issue will also be relevant to the “happiness hypothesis,” which will be discussed in the next section.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

 Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This article focuses specifically on individualism is detrimental to solidarity.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

(2-1) Durkheim’s concern about individualism

Its opposite, which emphasizes the welfare or harmony of the group or society, is called collectivism.

For example, choosing a career based on personal preference rather than family or societal expectations, or valuing freedom of religion and expression, can be considered individualistic attitudes in contemporary contexts.

Durkheim’s evaluation of individualism differs between his work The Division of Labor in Society and his later writings (such as Individualism and the Intellectuals).

In short, he was critical of individualism in the former and more supportive in the latter. The question then is: what aspects of individualism were considered problematic and criticized by Durkheim in The Division of Labor in Society?

In segmentary societies, collectivism was considered a defining characteristic. Society was prioritized over individual freedom, personality, and interests. As with Durkheim’s definition of the collective consciousness, shared beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of society were emphasized.

As societies became more organized, individualism gradually became more dominant than collectivism, meaning that individual freedom, personality, and interests were increasingly valued.

Consequently, the aspect of each individual sharing the “common beliefs and sentiments” became weaker, and diversity was increasingly highlighted, as reflected in the idea that “everyone is different, and that is good.”

Durkheim argued that the collective consciousness has not completely disappeared in modern society. In more organized societies, the collective consciousness became more general and abstract.

While in segmentary societies, individuals were regulated by concrete daily practices and religious norms, in organized societies, they increasingly relied on universal values such as awareness of human rights, freedom, and equality.

Instead of concrete, singular beliefs such as “the teachings of a particular religion,” “the authority of a certain ruler,” or “ancient traditions are correct,” the average consciousness comes to be defined by more abstract values such as freedom, equality, individuality, and diversity.

In other words, it can be described as an era in which individuals must choose for themselves what values to prioritize.

Durkheim argued that as the collective consciousness becomes more abstract, it promotes the fragmentation of the individual. When norms are less concretely specified, individuals gain greater freedom and tend to prioritize themselves over society.

This can also be understood in relation to the tendency in modern art to value originality—individuality and difference from others—over realism.

Durkheim also stated that “the individual becomes the object of a kind of religion.” The individual comes to be regarded as a sacred, valuable, and inviolable being, and society should not constrain or violate their rights.

Importantly, the dignity, sense of responsibility, irreplaceability of each individual, and the interdependence among individuals generate a force that makes individuals aware of society, producing what Durkheim called organic solidarity.

However, as organic solidarity became more dominant than mechanical solidarity, it became more difficult for individuals to consciously recognize this social force.

People tend to take for granted institutions such as the police, laws, morality, or even small acts of kindness.

It is often only when “ruptures” occur, such as natural disasters or other crises, that the significance and presence of these social and collective elements are strongly perceived.

To use a metaphor, one rarely notices a windowpane until it breaks; normally, it is transparent and taken for granted.

For example, when one hears statements like “it is acceptable to sacrifice you as one individual to save 100 people,” I feel a sense of discomfort. This may be because I hold individualistic beliefs. Many others probably feel the same.

More concrete examples make this intuition clearer: “It is acceptable to harass you for the company’s profit,” “It is acceptable to force you to shave your head for school discipline,” “It is acceptable to indirectly compel you into unwanted romantic relationships through measures like a single-person tax to address declining birthrates,” or “Parents may take away most of a child’s freedom for their own good.”

1. The awareness that “the individual is a sacred being” constitutes the average, shared consciousness (collective consciousness) in the modern and contemporary era.
2. Durkheim expressed concern in The Division of Labor in Society that individualism indeed “binds us to each other,” but “does not bind us to society.” He went so far as to state that the ties (solidarity, bonds) produced by individualism are not true social bonds.

(2-2) What is utilitarian individualism

In Individualism and the Intellectuals, Durkheim classified individualism into three types: utilitarian individualism, idealistic (or metaphysical) individualism, and moral individualism.

Durkheim had Herbert Spencer in mind as an example.

The difference from the utilitarianism of Mill or Bentham lies in the fact that Spencer was influenced by Darwin’s principle of natural selection and emphasized individual freedom and natural competition. Spencer did not take the happiness of others or society as a direct guiding principle; rather, he believed that when individuals freely develop their abilities and pursue their self-interest, it would ultimately contribute to the progress and well-being of society as a whole.

Durkheim criticized Spencer’s disregard for communal consciousness. He regarded this form of utilitarian individualism as “a vulgar commercialism that reduces society to nothing more than a vast mechanism of production and exchange” and considered it unacceptable.

Here, commercialism generally refers to a perspective in which commercial success and economic gain are valued above other social or moral considerations.

(2-3) What is idealistic (or metaphysical) individualism

However, such values are not considered to exist beyond the individual; they are understood to be discerned from within the individual through reason, mind, or consciousness.

Strictly speaking, this is “idealistic individualism,” with Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in mind (whether they are strictly idealists is set aside here, focusing only on this aspect).

Idealism generally refers to the perspective that “the mind shapes reality,” or more broadly, that the mind and consciousness are central.

According to Durkheim, based on the ideas of Kant and Rousseau, “moral values that apply equally to all individuals exist a priori.”

The term a priori refers to a form of knowledge or recognition that exists prior to experience.

From an idealistic perspective, reason and morality are not something we create through society; rather, they are innate, and the emphasis is on discovering them using the power of reason. For example, one form of idealism, solipsism, holds the position that the existence of others or the external world cannot be known with certainty.

René Descartes’ statement, “I think, therefore I am,” is close to this position. However, Descartes differs slightly from solipsism in that he attempted to prove the existence of God, an objective reality beyond the mind.

For example, in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen during the French Revolution of 1789, it was asserted that all people are born with universal rights such as freedom and equality.

The idea of freedom and equality is not something created by individuals or society, but is considered to be inherently innate from birth, which is extremely important in this context.

The concepts of freedom and equality are not considered to be created through our communication with others or our actions upon material objects.

This perspective may also reflect a caution against allowing authorities to arbitrarily define individual rights in specific, concrete ways. In fact, it is necessary to consider that in certain societies, the belief that “rights are guaranteed only to a particular ethnic group” can socially emerge.

(2-4) What is moral individualism

In short, moral individualism holds that capacities such as reason and values like freedom and equality are not innate but socially created. Individuals express their individuality within the framework of values (morality) that society deems desirable.

While Durkheim recognized certain similarities with idealistic individualism, he opposed the view that moral values can be grasped solely by the reason of isolated individuals, emphasizing instead that they arise through society, beyond the individual.

One might argue, in an extreme thought experiment, that isolated individuals cannot discover such moral values. From a Simmelian sociological perspective, it could be imagined that one experiences freedom only through the contrast with social constraints felt in communication with others.

Durkheim considered a state entirely without social constraints undesirable; he viewed as healthy and genuinely free the attitudes in which, under constraint, one refrains from actions because they violate morality or acts because they conform to it.

Fundamentally, the “individual” is produced by society; without society, there would be no individual, only a “mere biological being.” Society guarantees freedom and equality to the individual, and this is concretely connected to the emergence of the state.

The French Revolution and the formation of the modern nation-state occurred around the same period and are closely related in this regard.

In short, this perspective seeks morality not in the individual, but in society. For example, no one can perform a division of labor entirely alone; it requires multiple people and groups.

Through the process of collective labor, the collective consciousness is formed, and moral values emerge spontaneously.

The idea is not that something buried deep within the individual is simply uncovered, but that it is co-created collectively. If the development of the division of labor preceded the French Revolution, one could say that it helped prepare some of the social conditions for the Revolution.

As seen in the context of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, there is a danger that if the state holds too much power, the collective consciousness may veer in extreme directions.

The distance between the state and the citizens is crucial; if it is too close or too distant, extremes are more likely.

For this reason, Durkheim emphasized intermediate associations, such as professional groups, which both restrain the state’s excesses and allow for the pursuit of individual freedom.

(2-5) What is the science of morality

Although collective consciousness and moral values are unconsciously perceived by individuals, it is difficult to clearly make them conscious or put them into words.

Durkheim believed that the role of “science” is precisely to achieve this consciousness and articulation. He especially emphasized a science that grasps moral values such as solidarity—that is, social facts—and uncovers the “laws of morality.” This science is what Durkheim called sociology, or the science of morality.

Durkheim believed that by making what exists unconsciously conscious, people would become more aware of society, morality, and solidarity, and that social integration would thereby be strengthened.

Durkheim stated about moral individualism that “members of the same social group would no longer have anything in common besides the attributes that constitute their general personality,” which is somewhat difficult to understand. The important point is that we share in common the “attributes that constitute general personality.” However, what exactly are these?

The “attributes that constitute general personality” are not understood in the Kantian or Rousseauian sense; rather, they are produced by a group in a particular society at a particular historical time and can only be recognized within the group as collective consciousness.

For example, in The Division of Labor in Society, such attributes include social responsibility, cooperativeness, and interdependence. These are rooted in organized society and function both to regulate and empower individuals.

In a more visible form, Durkheim particularly cited “repressive law.” In repressive law, “cooperation” is considered its main value. In more abstract terms, this corresponds to freedom and equality.

In the context of the division of labor, this means that there is value in both the freedom to choose among diverse occupations and the equality of opportunity to make those choices, with these two concepts being closely related.

Durkheim’s view of individualism in The Division of Labor in Society can be understood as somewhat negative, seeing it as “a situation in which individuals become divided because people try to escape social constraints as much as possible and cease to consciously perceive society in concrete and clear terms.”

This perspective is closer to a critique of utilitarian individualism: it produces fragile bonds that cannot create genuine social ties.

Freedom and equality are certainly valuable, but without any constraints, they can become excessive and tend to lead to negative effects on social integration, such as anomy (lack of regulation) or egoism (self-centeredness). Suicide can also arise from the gap between excessive desires for freedom and equality and the reality in which they are not fulfilled.

However, if individualism takes the form of moral individualism, it should be viewed more positively, and Durkheim expected that it could help create “genuine social bonds.”

Individualization works successfully when it is supported by the morality of the society; without such support, it does not function properly. Similar to Parsons, Durkheim also held a Kantian idea that “the very orientation toward norms is freedom.”

However, unlike Kant, he did not consider these norms to be innate; rather, he saw them as acquired and socially formed, and he sought to study their emergence scientifically rather than speculatively.

Durkheim argued that moral individualism makes it possible to “bind us to society.” He even stated that it is “the only system of beliefs that can establish moral unity in our country going forward.”

Durkheim’s moral individualism is not a form of collectivism that denies individual rights and simply prioritizes society. Rather, he held that “individual rights should be affirmed, and if they are not, society (in France at the time) cannot be maintained.”

The attitude is that “individual rights should be exercised based on collective consciousness and social realities shared by society, such as freedom, equality, and a sense of responsibility.”

It can be easier to understand by imagining a harmonization—or aufheben—of individualism and collectivism. This is sometimes described as a defense of liberalism from a communitarian perspective.

For example, choices regarding clothing, hairstyle, occupation, favorite foods, preferred types of people, favored fields of study, or preferred spaces are areas where individuality is broadly acceptable, and people are free to choose and pursue them.

However, actions that harm others, display a lack of responsibility, waste food, or disrupt social order should not be permitted, as they violate values that are held in common as part of the collective consciousness of each society.

The freedom to wear flashy clothing to a funeral, or to not attend at all, is not considered an acceptable freedom from the perspective of the country I live in.

Of course, there are countries where such behavior is allowed, so it is always necessary to take into account the realities and ideals of the specific society.

Of course, taken literally, this could be seen as a conservative view, but Durkheim also held innovative ideas.

He did not argue that people should simply preserve the existing collective consciousness and have freedom only in that direction.

Morality—the attributes that constitute general personality—is not merely a set of established facts; it can also be understood in an idealistic sense.

This can be related to Kant’s notion of regulatory ideas. In fact, the philosopher Kant is also a presupposition in Jürgen Habermas’s concept of the ideal speech situation in sociology.

In reality, there are often cases where things contradict the ideal, and there is room for improvement. Changes in social or physical conditions may require corresponding adjustments in reality.

However, if only the prevailing collective consciousness were considered correct, public opinion might be treated as inherently right (setting aside the question of whether public opinion can truly reflect the existing collective consciousness).

For example, in a society, people may collectively hold the ideal that dictatorship is wrong, yet in reality, a collective consciousness may develop in which dictatorship becomes unavoidable. Some individuals may resist such non-ideal dictatorship, but the likelihood of tragic consequences is high.

This situation can also apply to small societies, such as schools, where bullying occurs. Students may understand the social ideal that “bullying is wrong,” yet struggle with the social reality of conformity pressure, feeling compelled to participate to avoid isolation from the group.

It is sometimes acceptable to adopt a critical stance toward the realities of collective consciousness, and doing so does not automatically violate morality.

Durkheim likely believed that the ability to compare ideals and reality could be grasped more reflectively and concretely through “science.”

For example, in this process, the latent functions of bullying—similar to the study of crime—might become apparent (without implying that bullying is morally good). However, as sociologist Robert Merton demonstrated, determining whether the functions or dysfunctions prevail, and calculating their net effect in a complex modern society, is difficult.

Durkheim argues that “ideals” should not be detached from reality or empty abstractions; they must be grounded in the actual social world.

He is also critical of the idea that such ideals can be discovered through mere individual speculation. For example, the ideal that dictatorship is wrong is itself rooted in the reality of existing dictatorships.

However, the question remains: from what perspective can we judge whether a given “ideal” is genuinely good, and to what extent can this be understood scientifically?

We need to take the “science of values (morality)” seriously—for instance, this is an approach explored by architect Christopher Alexander.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

 Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This article focuses specifically on Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

(2-1) Basic Concepts in Ferdinand Tönnies

First, let us review the core of Tönnies’s argument.

Whereas Gemeinschaft embodies a durable and authentic form of communal life grounded in trust, Gesellschaft is regarded as a temporary and superficial construct formed in accordance with specific instrumental purposes.

Ferdinand Tönnies argued that, as a matter of historical development, society transitions from an era of Gemeinschaft to an era of Gesellschaft.

A modern society is one in which Gesellschaft, mediated by interests and grounded in calculative and rational will, becomes dominant. Modernization is the process through which Gemeinschaft disintegrates, and it is regarded as an inevitable trajectory.

Ferdinand Tönnies pointed out the negative aspects of both forms: relations of domination in Gemeinschaft, such as slavery, and the lack of intimacy in Gesellschaft, such as deception. On this basis, he proposed Genossenschaft as a more appropriate form of social organization.

When Tönnies is reconsidered in this way, his argument appears to largely overlap with that of Émile Durkheim.

The thesis of a transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft corresponds to the shift from segmentary society (mechanical solidarity) to organized society (organic solidarity).

Furthermore, the proposal to reconstruct Genossenschaft in response to the perceived crisis of social change corresponds to Durkheim’s argument for the reconstruction of intermediate groups.

However, the idea of reconstructing intermediate groups was not unique to these thinkers; it had also been advocated by others, such as clericalists who emphasized the authority of the Church.

(2-2)Putnam’s Critique of Tönnies

Tönnies places a strongly positive valuation on Gemeinschaft, describing it as an authentic form of communal life, while he portrays Gesellschaft in negative terms as a merely temporary and superficial form of social coexistence.

In other words, he advances a normative position that the warm and solidaristic ties characteristic of Gemeinschaft are more fundamental and genuine. However, due to factors such as population growth, technological development, and the expansion of knowledge, the transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft is regarded as unavoidable.

The sociologist Robert D. Putnam presents cases that challenge Tönnies’s schema that society develops from Gemeinschaft (community) to Gesellschaft (association).

For example, in Italy, the more traditional and solidaristic South tends to exhibit lower levels of civicness, whereas the more artificial and modern North tends to exhibit higher levels of civicness.

Rather than treating the two as a simple dichotomy, Putnam points out that even in highly developed Gesellschaft-type societies, Gemeinschaft-like social relations and forms of solidarity are often sustained.

For instance, civic associations, voluntary organizations, and sports clubs constitute intermediate network-based forms of organization that are neither Gemeinschaft nor Gesellschaft in a strict sense.

Modernization and the advance of Gesellschaft do not entail a complete transition in which the warm, Gemeinschaft-like elements entirely disappear.

In reality, Gemeinschaft-like elements persist within Gesellschaft-type structures. Indeed, in Italy, regions such as the South, where Gemeinschaft-like ties are relatively strong, tend to exhibit weaker civicness, as reflected in indicators such as the number of associations and voter turnout in referenda.

However, it is important that Tönnies also posited Genossenschaft. It is not organized merely as an instrumental association for profit, like a corporation, nor is it passively constituted through given relations such as those between parents and children.

Rather, as in the case of guilds, it emphasizes horizontal relations in which members cooperate on the basis of mutual recognition and solidarity. In this sense, it can be understood as a form of social organization that combines key elements of both Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft.

If we consider cases in which Gemeinschaft-like elements are adapted to the conditions of Gesellschaft-type life, we can coherently understand situations such as northern Italy, where Gesellschaft has advanced while strong elements of civil society are maintained.

What is crucial here is that Gemeinschaft-like elements have two distinct aspects: those that hinder the development of Gesellschaft and those that are compatible with it. Without distinguishing between these, it becomes difficult to understand how Gemeinschaft-like characteristics can persist within Gesellschaft.

(2-3)Durkheim’s Critique of Tönnies

Émile Durkheim criticizes Tönnies by arguing that, while he largely accepts Tönnies’s analysis of Gemeinschaft, he cannot accept his analysis of Gesellschaft.

This is because Tönnies focuses predominantly on the negative aspects of Gesellschaft and fails to recognize its positive dimensions. In addition, he does not adequately address the common features shared by these two forms of social organization.

The perspective of focusing only on the negative aspects while neglecting the positive ones can later be connected to Jürgen Habermas’s more positive reassessment of modern rationalization, particularly in terms of communicative rationality.

It is also possible that Tönnies’s orientation as a socialist contributed to Durkheim’s critique. One can reasonably infer, in a simplified manner, that Gesellschaft tends to be viewed primarily in negative terms because it is associated with the characteristics of a capitalist society that ought to be overcome, in favor of a socialist society in which cooperation and equality are primary.

Put very roughly, Tönnies treats Gesellschaft as merely an economic aggregate and, in doing so, overlooks its moral characteristics and positive aspects. Both Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft can function in similar ways insofar as they generate social integration and bonds among individuals.

To quote Durkheim, “It is mistaken to oppose a society arising from a community of beliefs to one based on cooperation, recognizing only the former as possessing moral characteristics while viewing the latter merely as an economic aggregate.”

Tönnies also conceived Genossenschaft as a form that integrates elements of both Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, so it is not entirely inaccurate to say that his position approaches that of Durkheim.

Without taking into account the idea of Genossenschaft, his argument may appear overly simplistic, as if it focused only on the negative aspects of Gesellschaft.

Durkheim did not adopt a simple dichotomy; rather, he argued that organic solidarity and mechanical solidarity coexist and support one another.

What concerned him was an imbalance between them, that is, a condition in which modernization produces not free and moral forms of cooperation but constrained and non-moral ones. In this sense, his sense of crisis regarding the imbalance of modern society, and his idea of reconstructing occupational groups such as guilds, can be seen as similar to Tönnies’s line of thought.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

 Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This article focuses specifically on Non-contractual elements in contracts.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

(2-1) Crime in Durkheim

Durkheim’s theory of crime is compelling because it deliberately suspends common sense and develops an unexpected analytical perspective. For example, in a well-known statement, he argues that “we do not condemn an act because it is a crime; rather, it is a crime because we condemn it.”

In more technical terms, this means that crime cannot be defined in terms of the intrinsic properties of an act. In other words, it is not possible to argue that acts such as killing a person or stealing property are crimes because they possess inherently, universally, and absolutely criminal qualities independent of society.

This perspective is closely related to the notion of context as discussed by Jacques Derrida and Gregory Bateson.

For example, in the context of war, killing another person may not contradict the collective conscience of a society. Of course, there can also be individuals who believe that “even in wartime, such acts are blameworthy,” and there may be societies in which such views are predominant on average. Likewise, acts that we would not consider criminal at all may be treated as crimes within a monastery (for instance, eating meat).

In short, which acts are condemned varies depending on a particular historical period and society, and accordingly, what is regarded as crime also changes.

Durkheim also argues that crime can be defined only as “all acts that are punished.” In this sense, crime is a retrospective or consequential category. An act is considered a crime because it is condemned, and whether it is condemned depends on the collective conscience of a given society, making it inherently relative.

In other words, crime is determined by the collective conscience in a relative manner, rather than by any universal, objective, or absolute standard that transcends a particular collective conscience.

As a further crucial point, Durkheim argues that crime cannot be defined in terms of its harmfulness to society. What matters is whether an act is condemned by the members of a society, that is, whether it provokes collective indignation.

For example, Durkheim suggests that killing a single individual does not necessarily constitute a significant harm to society as a whole (although this may depend on who is killed). In The Division of Labor in Society, he even states, “What does it matter that society loses one individual? What is it to an organism to lose a single cell?”

Durkheim considers phenomena such as bankruptcy or sudden fluctuations in the stock market to be more harmful to society than acts like homicide. If economic deterioration weakens social solidarity and leads to situations in which people may starve to death, then, in terms of “harmfulness to society,” such phenomena can be regarded as more serious than individual acts of killing.

That said, it may be difficult to imagine specific situations in which a single individual directly brings about such large-scale consequences, especially without detailed knowledge of economic processes.

For example, even if a corporate executive deliberately engages in accounting fraud or financial deception, the prison sentence may amount to only a few years. Insider trading may be another example.

Political slush fund scandals may also fall into this category. While generating distrust in the economy or political system may be more dangerous than homicide in terms of its societal impact, the legal penalties imposed are nevertheless overwhelmingly lighter than those for homicide.

Of course, there may have been societies in which the “degree of harmfulness” is directly reflected in the severity of crime, and such societies may still exist somewhere today. In any case, the definition of crime varies according to the collective conscience of a given society.

In fact, I personally feel far greater indignation at the brutal group lynching of a member of the same society than at insider trading.

Durkheim’s remark, “What does it matter that society loses one individual?”, appears to me to resonate with Max Weber’s statement, in which he bitterly tells a young man, “At a time when the nation is utterly exhausted, what is the point of saving only one’s own soul?”

I sense a common orientation in both toward prioritizing the whole over the individual, as well as a morally and ethically rigorous stance. At the same time, however, it also evokes a line of thought often attributed to fictional antagonists, namely that “rather than becoming a hero who saves a single individual, it is more important to sacrifice one person if doing so preserves the health of society.”

As a child, I believed that the claims of the “heroes of justice” were correct; however, one eventually comes to recognize that antagonists also possess their own sense of justice, and thus the difficulty of grounding value judgments becomes apparent.

In the case of Jürgen Habermas, the orientation would likely be toward seeking a point of compromise through deliberation.

For Niklas Luhmann, it might lead to the view that human judgment itself is not fully reliable, and that it is preferable to rely on the rationality of social systems. In Durkheim’s case, one might expect that new ideals emerge through what he calls collective effervescence.

In any case, it seems indispensable to cultivate in individuals the capacity to be conscious of society and to reflect upon it. It is for this reason that sociology is required.

(2-2) “The existence of crime is a sign of a healthy society”

One of Durkheim’s most intriguing ideas is the claim that the existence of crime is itself an indication of a healthy society.

In The Rules of Sociological Method, he argues that “crime is a factor in public health and constitutes an integral part of all healthy societies.”

We ordinarily assume, as a matter of common sense, that “the less crime there is, the better.”

However, Durkheim argues that if the crime rate falls too far below its normal level, this should not be welcomed but rather taken as a cause for concern; he even characterizes it as a form of “social disorganization.” What, then, does this mean?

According to Durkheim, “the existence of criminal acts is a normal condition,” and “there is no society in which crime does not exist.” As noted earlier, acts that would not ordinarily be regarded as criminal may nevertheless be defined as crimes within a monastery.

In any society, crime consists of acts that are collectively condemned, and the specific types of such acts vary from one society to another. Moreover, the fact that members of a society are able to condemn certain acts collectively also signifies the society’s level of social integration (that is, its cohesion or solidarity).

For example, when a homicide is reported in the news, we may feel anger as if it concerned us personally (while at the same time often remaining indifferent to poverty in distant countries).

There is a tendency not to dismiss such events as entirely unrelated to oneself.

Durkheim defines punishment in this way and explains its function as “maintaining the full vitality of the collective conscience and ensuring that social cohesion remains intact.” In short, punishment serves to reinforce, sustain, and reaffirm social integration.

When I imagine a society in which no one feels anger toward acts such as homicide, I find it somewhat unsettling. For this reason, media that disseminate such information to the broader public (such as newspapers and online news platforms) play an important role.

At the same time, it is essential that such media operate with as much impartiality and fairness as possible, minimizing bias.

Of course, this does not mean that Durkheim defends or endorses crime. Rather, he points out that crime has functions that cannot be grasped through common-sense perspectives alone.

When a certain phenomenon is “condemned,” it indicates that there exist criteria within that society for distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. This, in turn, provides an opportunity for members of the society to recognize that order, rather than chaos, prevails. In Niklas Luhmann’s terms, this can be understood as the existence of a “code.”

This line of thinking is close to what the sociologist Robert K. Merton later called “latent functions.” In other words, people do not condemn acts with the explicit intention of maintaining social integration; rather, even without such intentions, their actions may nevertheless have the consequence of positively contributing to social cohesion.

Even if individuals’ inner motives are, for example, “I am afraid of being harmed, so I want dangerous people to be excluded,” “I simply dislike them,” or “I am irritated and want to lash out,” such reactions may still function to reinforce social integration as an unintended outcome.

(2-3) Revision in “The Two Laws of Penal Evolution”

Later, in the 1901 paper The Two Laws of Penal Evolution, Durkheim revised the theory of crime presented in The Division of Labor in Society.

In The Division of Labor in Society, he had explained that the older or simpler a society is, the more dominant are repressive laws (with heavier punishments), whereas as society becomes more complex and developed, restitutive laws become more dominant (with lighter punishments).

In The Two Laws of Penal Evolution, in addition to the broad categories of social type (complex/simple, higher/lower, division of labor/non-division of labor, etc.), Durkheim introduced the factor of “the nature of governmental authority.”

Specifically, he added the principle that “the more absolute the central authority, the harsher the punishments tend to be.” An important point is that Durkheim considered the absolutism of central authority to be only weakly correlated with the type of society. In other words, regardless of whether a society is high or low, or whether it has a division of labor or not, central authority can still possess an absolute character.

In fact, Germany during World War II and contemporary China are societies in which the division of labor is highly developed, yet the central authority possesses an absolute character. Therefore, it can be inferred that punishments in such contexts are severe.

Of course, there remains the question of how one could empirically demonstrate, according to a clear standard, that punishments in Germany or China are indeed severe.

For example, in countries often regarded as having harsh punishments, such as China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, the government wields strong authority. In China, the number of executions is sometimes estimated to be the highest in the world, while in Saudi Arabia and Iran, public executions and floggings occur.

The sociologist Eisho Omura points out, “Japan’s crime rate is extremely low, but should this be considered an abnormal phenomenon?” If crime has positive functions, one must also consider the concrete problem of how to make a net calculation of its effects in the Mertonian sense.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

 Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This article focuses specifically on A society without crime is unhealthy.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

What are non-contractual elements in a contract?

Why did Durkheim make such a claim? To answer this, it is helpful to examine his critique of the sociologist Spencer.

Criticism directed at Spencer

Herbert Spencer was a British sociologist who lived slightly earlier than Durkheim and shortly after Comte.

Influenced by Adam Smith’s laissez-faire liberalism and Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, he developed the theory of society as an organism.

In simple terms, this theory proposes that just as living organisms evolve through natural selection, societies also evolve over time.

This idea is similar to that of Comte and is based on an analogical way of thinking.

Spencer viewed society as something based on agreements arising from individual interests and believed that the development of society should emphasize individual freedom, arguing that social regulations hinder such development.

This view is closely aligned with Adam Smith’s concept of laissez-faire liberalism, which holds that free competition in the market leads to the most efficient economic outcomes.

According to this perspective, if individuals are left to act freely, society will evolve through natural selection, making regulation unnecessary.

Durkheim criticized Spencer’s view, pointing out that society is not merely a collection of individual economic interests and their agreements.

This critique is related to the so-called Hobbesian problem of order—namely, how social order emerges from a natural state.

The sociologist Talcott Parsons argued that social order is made possible by norms, but he tended to treat these foundational norms as given, without explaining the process by which they originally emerge.

The concept of contract in the theories of Luhmann and Parsons

The sociologist Niklas Luhmann also discussed the concept of contract.

According to conventional thinking, a “valid contract” is assumed to be based on actions stemming from the will of individual subjects.

However, Luhmann argued that what precedes this is a set of preconditions—such as what is considered valid, and what counts as agreement in the first place.

Luhmann argued that behind any agreement lies a prior agreement about the rules of agreement, which itself relies on another layer of agreement about those rules—leading to an infinite regress.

Therefore, any agreement can only function as something that is always already presupposed by action.

If society did not exist and individuals were completely isolated from one another, contracts would not emerge in the first place, and deceiving the other party would become the most rational strategy.

This would lead to a war of all against all—a state of anarchy.

Apart from deception, another possible outcome would be a more animalistic condition in which individuals submit to others through sheer force.

Nearly all human beings are born into a world where society already exists.

Every society has some form of morality, some form of law, and some degree of trust that has already been established.

In response to the question of how original social order—that is, norms and morality—first came into being, Parsons maintained that it must simply be taken as given.

In Luhmann’s framework, the system (society) exists first, followed by its elements (social actions and communication)—in other words, the chicken comes before the egg.

Because individuals do not know what others are thinking and each is a kind of black box, they engage in communication, through which certain rules emerge.

This is the basic idea behind Luhmann’s approach.

Because of the double contingency, social interaction is initiated, and the social system is generated.

There is an image of difference here: one approach, like Husserl’s phenomenology, tries to refine the notion of the origins as far as possible before concluding it is ultimately unknowable;

while another approach, like Heidegger’s, starts from the assumption of unknowability and interprets it as something given or gifted from the beginning.

Durkheim, like Parsons and Luhmann, regarded social order as a legacy inherited from preceding generations, something that cannot be reduced to mere private interests or individuals.

From this perspective, his view appears similar to Heidegger’s.

However, Durkheim goes further by specifically suggesting that a sense of the sacred may have influenced the idea of (primitive) contracts in some form.

The role of religion in this context will be explored in depth in a separate video.

The notion that religion influences economic behavior connects importantly to Weber’s idea that protestantism affected the development of capitalism.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Summary in the Video

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

 Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This article focuses specifically on repressive law and restitutive law.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

 How can labor-based solidarity be examined?

The difference between internal and external facts

A moral phenomenon like social solidarity is inherently difficult to observe directly. Social solidarity itself is a type of internality, meaning it is not directly visible. Therefore, it is necessary to approach internal aspects by examining external facts, which are more easily observable.

It is essential to recognize that both external facts and internal facts are considered social facts as defined in The Rules of Sociological Method.

This approach is characterized by the principle of explaining society through society itself. More precisely, it is an attempt to grasp the invisible, total society indirectly by analyzing the partial aspects of society that are visible to us.

Even a partial society is, of course, difficult to observe directly. Concepts such as the social, collective existence, collective consciousness, and internal facts belong to the same group of meaning. Similarly, collective representations, external indicators, and external facts form another group.

Distinguishing between these two groups brings greater conceptual clarity. What is crucial is that both groups are regarded as social facts.

For example, organic solidarity and organized society are internal facts, but they are only one of the elements that constitute society or a partial whole.

In this sense, compared to society itself, which is the most abstract, broad, and complex, these elements are more visible. However, statistics and laws may be considered clearer examples of external facts because they are more concrete.

Society itself is the least visible, solidarity is more visible, and statistics and institutions serve to make that solidarity more observable.

For example, organized society can be considered a partial society in a certain sense, while a larger total society may include organic society and possibly other types of societies.

Through these interactions, society itself—the total society—is constituted. More specifically, Durkheim classifies social phenomena into those with organized forms and those without organized forms, such as social currents, in The Rules of Sociological Method.

In the case of the former, organized forms include examples such as rules, morals, language, and financial institutions. The latter, unorganized forms, refer to social currents such as society’s tendencies toward suicide or marriage.

Additionally, there are more objectively observable factors like population density and geographical features.

Examining types of solidarity through types of law

The difference between repressive law and restitutive law

The answer to the question “How can solidarity based on the division of labor be examined?” is, in abstract terms, through external indicators—external facts and collective representations—and, more concretely, through law. However, the question remains: what aspects of solidarity are examined by law, and how?

Durkheim analyzed two types of law as follows:

1. In societies where repressive law is dominant, mechanical solidarity is considered to be the prevailing form of solidarity.
2. In societies where restitutive law is dominant, organic solidarity is considered to be the prevailing form of solidarity.

In this way, visible external facts such as law are used to indirectly grasp less visible internal facts such as solidarity. By classifying law, Durkheim conceptualizes a classification of social solidarity.

 Why do different types of law correspond to different types of solidarity?

Consider a case where an act is regarded as a crime because it threatens a certain form of social solidarity.

For example, murder or violence can be seen as acts that break the bonds between people. Such acts are considered crimes, and the offenders are often subject to punishment. The purpose of punishment is to make the offender atone for their guilt and to deter others from committing similar acts that damage social bonds.

One might question whether this has not been generally true in all societies from ancient times to the present.

The issue is not simply the presence of repressive law, but rather the degree or intensity of its application. Consider repressive laws that punish theft with execution or whipping.

 Why are the penalties so severe, and why are they more dominant than restitutive laws?

This is because, as seen in mechanical solidarity, people are bound together by homogeneity. Like the saying “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down,” those who differ are singled out and punished excessively in an effort to enforce sameness.

Some argue that the existence of the death penalty reflects the relatively strong presence of mechanical solidarity.

Durkheim explains that when a crime occurs, everyone experiences a collective feeling of outrage.

This anger is not the anger of any specific individual, but a public indignation shared by all. Since everything has been attacked, everyone collectively retaliates against this assault on the collective consciousness.

Considering that anger toward crimes not directly related to oneself in internet comment sections also falls under this type, such anger, when not excessive, can function positively as social sanction within society.

In premodern societies, this consciousness was stronger than in modern societies, and the intensity of anger was greater. Because people were more similar to each other, empathy was stronger, making it difficult to regard such matters as someone else’s problem.

In contrast, in the case of organic solidarity, the emphasis is less on punishment and more on the restoration of social solidarity.

For example, consider a situation in business where a judge orders payment when a contracted amount has not been paid. The focus is on returning to normal performance and restoring the customer relationship.

Disputes between friends or romantic partners are also handled by civil law, aiming not at deterrence but at fostering cooperation. Modern societies tend to place a greater emphasis on restitutive law compared to premodern societies.

A Perspective on the Interaction of the Entire Society

In organized societies with developed division of labor, individuality, irreplaceability, and interdependence are high. Therefore, there is likely a greater need to regulate relationships. Excessive punishment, expulsion, or violence can disrupt social functioning.

However, as noted earlier, Durkheim did not believe that any society is dominated solely by one type of solidarity. Thus, the balance between both types of solidarity becomes crucial.

Additionally, the examination of integration tendencies based on specific cultural differences is addressed through statistics, such as those in Suicide.

In any case, it is necessary not to focus solely on law but to consider the interactions of various social facts—including religion and the economy—from multiple and holistic perspectives in order to conduct a more valid indirect observation of society itself.

It is, of course, nearly impossible to make society itself entirely visible.

However, I recall Weber’s words that “nothing can be achieved without attempting the impossible.” Sometimes, it may be necessary to set an ideal and adopt an attitude of gradually approaching it.

No society is sustained by religion alone or by the economy alone. Oversimplifying things leads to overlooking many important aspects and increases the risk of misinterpretation.

Even when analyzing phenomena solely through law or religion, it is crucial to remain strongly aware that such analysis reflects only the perspective filtered through the sociologist’s own biases.

In the words of Karl Mannheim, it is essential to maintain a strong awareness of totality. We view phenomena through colored lenses, and we must recognize that we are not seeing things as they are in themselves, nor society itself in its pure form. Given this, it becomes necessary to wear various colored lenses and to expand and integrate perspectives in a way that does not rely solely on any one lens. Mannheim calls this stance correlationism.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

 Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This article focuses specifically on sociological theory.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

What Is Sociological Theory

Sociologist Yumiko Ehara treats theory as a term that means a universal system of knowledge capable of coherently explaining individual phenomena.

First, theory determines which aspects of a phenomenon should be perceived, and then imposes coherence only on the information it selects.

The idea that theory “reduces the complexity and richness of the information contained in a phenomenon” is key.

As Max Weber put it, sociology is the task of interpreting and illuminating phenomena that are, in themselves, nothing more than infinite facts, by applying theories that are relevant at a given moment.

Without theory, we are confronted with chaotic and complex data, unable to determine which aspects we should perceive. It is like walking through a jungle at midnight without a light.

Even with a light, we cannot fully illuminate the truth itself—what phenomenology can only describe as an undefined “it.” Still, we can discuss the degree to which people are able to reach a shared understanding of what it seems to be.

In the words of Max Weber, this shared understanding reflects an objective possibility (Chance), and in the terms of Emile Durkheim, it corresponds to a social fact.

What Kind of Rationality Does Theory Require

According to Yumiko Ehara, being “rational” means identifying certain patterns or regularities within phenomena. Theory functions as a framework used when trying to understand the actions of others.

Emile Durkheim also attributed a role to science as discovering “laws,” but not laws of nature governing society; rather, he argued that there are social laws unique to society. The characterization of social facts as a distinct kind of reality signifies the difference between social reality and natural scientific reality.

In sociology in particular, rationality is not limited to the type of logic where 2 plus 2 equals 4; rather, emphasis has been placed on understanding the meaning, motives, and goals behind others’ actions. Max Weber’s interpretive sociology (verstehen sociology) exemplifies this approach.

However, in Weber’s case, the focus tends to be less on the psychology of specific individuals and more on the average psychology, or so-called “types,” which is similar to Durkheim’s emphasis, as Durkheim also adopted a perspective based on the average individual.

How Does Academic Theory Differ from Everyday Theory

According to Yumiko Ehara, theories in everyday life are inseparably linked to perception and experience, and people rarely become consciously aware of these theories.

Indeed, if asked to immediately provide concrete examples of everyday theories, it is difficult.

Intuitively, we might live within unconscious frameworks (theories) based on assumptions like “because it is this way.” These could be considered a type of tacit knowledge. For example, we can distinguish between Michael and John’s faces, but we do not know exactly on what basis we do so.

Similarly, we do not know why a stranger’s suicide causes us such deep sadness.

Unlike everyday theories, academic theories assume that the theory itself is recognized and critically examined in advance. It is commonly understood that theories are tested for their validity, logical consistency, and empirical support.

Making unconscious frameworks explicit and conscious is also important. For example, Robert Merton’s concept of latent functions is related to this (though unintended consequences and the unconscious are slightly different).

From Gregory Bateson’s perspective, the idea that unconscious processes are economical is significant as well.

If we consciously considered every step we take, walking would become difficult. Only when a breakdown occurs do we become aware and need to consciously address it.

Durkheim also argued that the role of science is to use reason to bring to consciousness the unconscious influences that blindly govern people.

He considered it the role of science—and sociology in particular—to make tacit knowledge and unconscious domains conscious, especially by presenting them to us indirectly as objective facts, almost like things. He did not believe these could be presented directly.

Especially in sociology, the unconscious is also seen as a latent reality—that is, an ideal. Durkheim expressed this by saying that what we cherish more is not the body of society but the soul of society.

It is not merely desire or habit, but includes ideals. In particular, the modern ideals of freedom and equality are involved.

What Is a Law in Sociology

Sociologist Kazuo Moriyama defines a law as a schema that makes complex and diverse observed facts intellectually and coherently understandable.

He also claims that most theories in sociology are merely “pseudo-theories.” He describes theory as a process of deduction through “basic propositions” and “structural hypotheses.” The important point is that propositions and structural hypotheses do not simply emerge from observing data; rather, the researcher’s inference is necessary.

Example: The statement “the suicide rate is higher among Catholics than Protestants” is merely data rather than a law.

From there, researchers infer from the data, formulate propositions and hypotheses, and then construct a coherent system of knowledge from which theories can be deduced. Without theory, it is difficult to even determine whether a particular act (that act) qualifies as suicide.

In Durkheim’s example, the process of constructing hypotheses such as “low social cohesion (integration, solidarity) leads to a high suicide rate” deepens understanding of the question and showcases the sociologist’s skill.

Furthermore, the idea of cohesion can be used deductively as a tool applicable beyond suicide rates. In other words, its generalizability becomes important.

1. In sociology, simply finding correlations in data does not amount to discovering a law.
2. Data should be considered together with frameworks, theories, and systems that explain it.
3. The key focus lies in whether the scope of the theory is narrow (low-level empirical generalization), middle-range, or broad (overgeneralized).

In Merton’s view, a sociological theory is a logically connected set of propositions that serve as the basis for deriving empirical uniformities.

Empirical uniformity means the tendency or regularity by which multiple different phenomena can be explained similarly within the range observable in practice.

Example: Merton’s theory of reference groups can identify similar tendencies in schools, workplaces, and families.

In schools, friends; in workplaces, colleagues; and in families, siblings serve as reference groups that influence how individuals evaluate their own behavior.

The theory is not a single law but a logically connected and systematized set of propositions, such as whether groups one has not yet joined can still serve as reference groups, and what the concept of a reference group fundamentally entails.

Moriyama refers to the type of analysis that explains data through narratives as the “third-order interpretation,” which is an important point.

I find this “narrative” to be one of the enjoyable aspects of studying sociology. In the words of sociologist Toshiki Sato, it is the enjoyment of “skillfully letting go of common sense.” From Weber’s perspective, it corresponds to “unintended consequences,” from Merton’s to “latent functions,” from Luhmann’s to “functional equivalence,” and from Shinji Miyadai’s to the enjoyment of an “eye-opening revelation.”

Sociology has the unique appeal of offering alternative interpretations—showing other perspectives with narrative persuasiveness that guides readers to a “bonus in understanding” of phenomena, as Gregory Bateson might say.

That is why I love sociology. Additionally, though I’m not sure if it can be called a “narrative,” I also appreciate the “passion” that scholars exude.

Theories presented by scholars who possess a sense of crisis about society and feel a moral, normative, and value-laden imperative to act have something that excites readers even more.

This excitement differs from the “this can be used for something” thrill found in physics knowledge; it is closer to questions of why and what, rather than how.

What is society? What am I? What is my role? Where do we come from and where are we heading? Why does communication arise? Why does communication sometimes hurt or bring happiness? These questions are approached from a perspective that grants what C. Wright Mills called the sociological imagination.

Of course, there is a need to be cautious not to fall into what Alfred North Whitehead called the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness,” which happens when one is unaware of their own value judgments, group consciousness, or ideology.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

(2-1) Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This video focuses specifically on the topic of collective consciousness and collective representations.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

(2-2) Collective Consciousness

In simple terms, it refers to the shared ways of thinking and feeling among members of a society.

For example, in American society, many people share the belief that children should become independent once they reach a certain age.

After the publication of Suicide, the term collective consciousness came to be used less frequently.

(2-3) Collective Representations

This term has been more commonly used since the publication of Suicide.

The Difference between Collective Consciousness and Collective Representations

According to the sociologist Michio Nakajima, collective consciousness and collective representations are essentially the same in meaning, and there is little significance in distinguishing between them.

This is because both concepts include not only cognitive elements but also moral and religious dimensions.

Durkheim used the term collective consciousness less frequently because he wanted to give a new theoretical status to the concept of collective representations.

While collective consciousness referred broadly to beliefs and sentiments shared by the average members of an entire society, collective representations were used to describe more differentiated and specific forms of consciousness.

For example, these may include shared ideas and values held uniquely by groups such as doctors, politicians, or Protestants.

In general, the term representation means the symbolic expression of the meaning or image associated with something.

In other words, it refers to the attempt to make something invisible visible in some form.

If we understand collective representations as the visible forms of collective consciousness, I begin to wonder whether there might be some merit in distinguishing between the two.

It may be the case that the term external social facts (or external indicators) is more appropriate for embodying the meaning of representation than the concept of collective representations itself.

If we understand collective consciousness and collective representations as differing only in scope or degree of differentiation, and if we consider both as internal social facts that can be identified through external social facts (or external signs), the overall picture becomes somewhat clearer.

Durkheim distinguishes between internal social facts, which are invisible, and external social facts, which are visible.

For example, social solidarity is an internal social fact because it is not directly observable.

The problem lies in how to prove its existence.

The clues to this proof come from external social facts, such as statistical data that objectively represent averages or other measurable indicators.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

(2-1) Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.

This video focuses specifically on the concept of segmentary society and organized society within that framework.

The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.

If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology?
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

(2-2) What is a Segmentary Society?

It is also referred to as a “segmented society.” In Durkheim’s terminology, it corresponds to a society in which mechanical solidarity is dominant.

･What is segmentary ?

The term segmentary comes from biology, where a segment refers to a joint or connection between parts.

Segmented animals include creatures such as earthworms and centipedes.

The word segment is derived from the idea of a circular or ring-like shape.

Segmentary society is likely named after the body of an earthworm, which is composed almost entirely of similar, repeated parts.

It conveys an image of groups that are structurally and functionally similar, yet connected to form a whole.

Durkheim referred to the simplest type of social structure as a horde, which he considered the protoplasm of society.

(2-3) What is an Organized Society?

Durkheim himself did not use the term “organized society”; this label was adopted by later sociologists. In Durkheim’s terms, it refers to a society characterized by organic solidarity, also known as a differentiated society.

In an extreme sense, a segmentary society is one where everyone hunts together, prepares meals together, and participates in politics together without having specific, fixed roles.

In an organized society, people are divided into distinct roles, and these roles become further specialized within politics, the economy, and the family, forming a complex social organization.

What is Organization?

Generally, organization means ordering and systematizing individual elements or actions so that they function effectively toward a specific goal.

For example, the human body is organized, where individual parts such as the heart, brain, intestines, and pancreas function effectively—whether actively or as a result—to maintain life and homeostasis.

The term “organized society” refers to a society in which elements are more complex, differentiated, systematic, and interdependent.

It is not a society like a simple organism such as an amoeba, which can survive independently even if separated.

Since the modern era, collective consciousness has tended to prioritize rationality, discipline, and profitability for organizational cohesion rather than emotional bonds based on friendship or kinship.

In Max Weber’s terms, this resembles the concept of bureaucracy.

Of course, this does not mean that pre-modern societies were completely unorganized; for example, military forces have been strongly organized throughout all historical periods.

However, in the military, it is undesirable for the organization to collapse if a member is missing.The structure needs to be impersonal so that anyone can be replaced without disrupting the whole unit.

In this sense, modern military organizations are, in some respects, similar to segmental societies.

Indeed, in Durkheim’s Suicide (1897), he notes that modern armies show a high incidence of altruistic suicide, a pattern typical of pre-modern collective societies.

Thus, the military can be seen as an exceptional social formation.

(2-4) Why Has the Dichotomy Between Mechanical Solidarity and Organic Solidarity Been Largely Abandoned?

What were the problems with the theory of social change that claimed societies move from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, or from segmental societies to organized societies?

Why has the dichotomy between mechanical and organic solidarity largely fallen out of use?

Social life

Durkheim uses the term “social life” in The Division of Labor in Society.

Importantly, Durkheim argues that division of labor presupposes social life.

Social life has strong aspects of mechanical solidarity and segmental society.

Social life thus embodies strong cohesion based on shared beliefs and homogeneity.

Therefore, the statement “organic solidarity requires mechanical solidarity” holds true, making it difficult to explain social cohesion with a simple dichotomy.

The traditional schematic is too simplistic.

Rather than mechanical solidarity being replaced by organic solidarity, both coexist to some extent and mutually support each other.

A certain degree of commonality forms the foundation on which individuality and division of labor can flourish.

Organic solidarity requires mechanical solidarity, and vice versa, which makes them complementary in nature.

At the same time, there are also mutually exclusive aspects between the two.

For example, mechanical solidarity tends to eliminate individuality as much as possible.

In contrast, organic solidarity tends to accept and even encourage individuality.

In this sense, the two forms of solidarity are in some ways incompatible.

In such conflicts, social harmony may be achieved through context-dependent judgments that distinguish between desirable and undesirable forms of individuality.

However, making such judgments is inherently difficult.

This is precisely why issues like LGBTQ rights continue to generate intense public debate.

Then, which specific elements of mechanical solidarity are essential even within an organically integrated society?

Simply put, it is the sense of emotional attachment to one’s social group.

More concretely, this includes attachment to a shared land, reverence for ancestors, and the commonality of customs.

Without such attachment, competition for survival among members would accelerate, people would become fragmented, and division of labor would fail to generate solidarity.

The division of labor and competition have social significance, which lies in the fact that they are forms of contribution.

However, this requires a shared consciousness that our society is one in which such contributions have value.

In Durkheim’s terms, the development of division of labor depends on the increase in dynamic density, but this also presupposes a certain level of moral density―that is, a sense of attachment to one’s social group.

Weber’s observation of the Protestant belief in being forgiven by God may also be interpreted as a form of moral density.

It is not merely competition among isolated individuals, but rather the awareness that such competition is connected to something holistic and transcendent beyond the individual.

That transcendent whole is, of course, what we call society.

Durkheim emphasized patriotism, as he believed that a truly global society had not yet been formed at the level of all humanity.

For example, a desire like “I want to do something for my country” transforms what would otherwise be mere division of labor into a form of labor that generates solidarity.

Organic solidarity could not have emerged without the prior existence of mechanical solidarity.

A new form of order (solidarity) cannot arise from chaos alone.

Moreover, once organic solidarity has developed, it does not mean that mechanical solidarity entirely disappears.

This point highlights the importance of recognizing gradation, rather than treating these forms of solidarity as a binary of 1 or 0.

It is more appropriate to discuss their relative predominance or mutual balance within a given context, rather than assuming that one is absolutely inferior and should be reduced to zero.

Durkheim’s sociological sensibility is characterized by a persistent emphasis on the notion of moderation.

This resonates with the philosophy of Aristotle, who argued that virtue lies in the pursuit of the mean between extremes.

Just like a bath that is too cold or too hot can be harmful to the body, the ideal temperature arises through the balance of both extremes.

This sense of moderation also echoes Weber’s idea of balancing passion and rationality in one’s consciousness.

Weber once remarked that “Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective.”

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.

Explanation in the video

The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.

If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!

Introduction

This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim:

1. The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
2. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
3. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
4. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)

First, the main topics regarding The Division of Labor in Society are as follows.

This video will focus especially on the topics related to solidarity and types of society.

The remaining topics will be covered in the next article.

1. Chronology
2. What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
3. What is division of labor and what are its functions?
4. Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
5. [Column] What is sociology? (This marks the end of the first article.)
6. The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity(This marks the end of the second article.)
7. The difference between segmentary society and organized society
8. Collective conscience and collective representations
9. [Column] What is sociological theory?
10. Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
11. Non-contractual elements in contracts
12. A society without crime is unhealthy
13. [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
14. Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
15. Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
16. Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization

What Are Mechanical Solidarity and Organic Solidarity?

Society existed even before the development of the division of labor.

The division of labor is generally understood as a modern phenomenon, and in premodern societies, its scope was limited and relatively simple.

Nevertheless, even in premodern societies, forms of social solidarity (bonds) existed. In other words, we must distinguish between solidarity that emerges independently of the division of labor and solidarity that results from it.

This distinction forms the basis for understanding the difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.

It typically occurs in traditional or less differentiated societies, where individuals share common beliefs and perform similar work.

It emerges in more complex societies, where people perform specialized tasks and depend on each other to maintain social cohesion.

When I first began studying sociology, I was puzzled by these two forms of solidarity.

First, I wondered: if solidarity can arise both from similarity and from difference, then why is the division of labor even necessary?

Second, the phrase “a cog in the machine” evoked, for me, a very modern image. So I instinctively assumed that modern society must be characterized by mechanical solidarity, not organic solidarity.

First, mechanical and organic solidarity can be difficult to understand if we assume that all other conditions remain the same except for the form of solidarity itself.
For example, modern societies generally have larger populations and higher levels of mobility than premodern ones.
It is reasonable to assume that in order to avoid being invaded by other countries, or to develop industries, military capacity, and cultural achievements, some degree of division of labor becomes indispensable.

In short, there is an element of necessity. We simply have no choice.

If everyone were leisurely engaged in hunting or farming, the nation might not survive. It becomes a matter of survival.

Thus, the need for the division of labor arises not from personal preferences or individual tastes, but from social imperatives.

Given this broader social context, it becomes clear that the two forms of solidarity are no longer functionally equivalent.

The idea of “having no choice” reminds me of what I learned from Max Weber about the development of capitalism.

At first, Protestants may have expanded their businesses based on religious motives. For example, they believed that earning wealth correlated with assurance of salvation after death.

However, over time, the sense that they had no choice but to continue this path became increasingly dominant.

Religious motives gradually fade away, and people become consumed by competition with others.

To avoid falling behind or to satisfy desires, they repeatedly invest and pursue rationalization.

When a country’s technological capabilities develop, other countries imitate or strive to advance in order not to be left behind.

In this way, the division of labor progresses globally.

In the modern society we live in today, the idea that “we can manage without division of labor” is probably too optimistic.

If we tried that, this country could not be sustained. We have no choice but to engage in division of labor.

Just as Weber compared bureaucracy to a rigid cage or shell, there exists a social force that constrains and regulates us.

Of course, even if that is the case, it does not mean that any particular economic or political system is always absolutely correct.

A new system of necessity may emerge in the future.

Karl Marx emphasized class struggle and revolution as forces that drive new systems.

It is also important to consider what Durkheim emphasized in this regard.

Causes of the Development of the Division of Labor

According to Durkheim, the cause of the development of the division of labor lies in the “increase in the volume of society and its dynamic or moral density.”

The key point is that it is a social cause, not a personal cause such as an individual’s desire to increase happiness or improve efficiency.

The increase in the volume of society means a quantitative growth such as population size and density.

The increase in dynamic density refers to a rise in the frequency and intensity of interactions among members of society.

According to Durkheim, when the population grows and people perform the same type of labor, competition for survival intensifies.

For example, even if the population increases, the amount of farmland does not increase accordingly, and the number of people who can use farmland is limited.

Therefore, to alleviate such competition, people diversify and create different divisions of labor themselves.

It can be said that this is an era where what one should do is not predetermined within a narrow set of options, but where individuals create their own choices.

However, strictly speaking, this is not a teleological explanation that “the purpose was to alleviate competition,” but rather a causal and consequential explanation that “it had the function of alleviating competition.”

This is because Durkheim clearly criticized teleological functionalism.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the increase in the division of labor did not simply alleviate competition but also contained elements that intensified competition.

This is easily understood by considering how restaurants in our society often quickly go out of business.

Durkheim also recognized that such intensification of competition could lead to anomie or the dysfunction of the division of labor, such as abnormal forms of labor division.

This can be illustrated with the following image.

To put it very simply, those who have lost, those who are forced into specific roles, and even those who have won but think excessively about themselves tend to experience a mismatch between their desires, which are excessively high compared to their current situation, and their ability to realize them.

Such abnormal tendencies tend to have a negative impact on social solidarity.

Of course, it is important to be keenly aware that the definitions and distinctions between winning and losing, or normal and abnormal, are not simple or straightforward.

Furthermore, Durkheim also holds the (meritocratic) perspective that some form of regulation is necessary when inequality arises due to discrimination based on factors other than ability, such as origin or kinship.

It is also necessary to consider the concept of habitus (cultural capital), proposed by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002), when thinking about equality.

For example, children raised by highly educated parents tend to achieve high educational attainment themselves.

This is related not only to economic capital but also to various forms of cultural capital, such as reading habits, appreciation of the arts, and social interests.

Therefore, simply making university education free does not easily resolve the issue.

Let us briefly summarize.

The cause of the development of the division of labor is the increase in social volume and dynamic density, and the reason why division of labor produces social solidarity is the increase in mutual interdependence.

The concept of organic solidarity, in which individuals are different and therefore mutually dependent and socially integrated, is understandable.
However, a straightforward question arises: “Why was social solidarity possible in pre-modern societies even though individuals were not different?” and “Did pre-modern societies lack mutual interdependence in the first place?”

If we were to make a simple conjecture here, it would be explained similarly to how “the form of solidarity is different but it is still solidarity,” as “the form of mutual interdependence is different but it is still mutual interdependence.”

Mutual interdependence also existed in pre-modern societies, but due to population growth and other factors, the traditional forms of mutual interdependence could no longer be maintained, and therefore had to transform into new forms.

In pre-modern societies, mutual interdependence and solidarity were characterized by close relationships among people. The physical distance was short.

This brings to mind Georg Simmel’s discussion about appropriate distance and freedom.

In societies without the internet or automobiles, interactions were limited to family, relatives, and neighbors.

The quality and form of mutual interdependence were different. The distance of interdependence was close and concrete.

In modern and contemporary societies, the key point is that relationships are distant and abstract.
For example, when shopping on Amazon, people have an abstract relationship in that they do not really know who is selling, who is making the products, or how they are made.
Similarly, most people living in cities do not know much about their neighbors.

A society that maintains social life only within close distances and limited circles can no longer be sustained,
and it inevitably becomes a society where people maintain relationships over long distances and with a wide range of others.
If we imagine a situation where buying and selling goods is possible only with people nearby,
we can easily foresee how inconvenient life would be.

For example, it is easy to understand if we think about farmers who produce crops not only for people in their local area but also for people all over the country whom they do not even know.

Of course, as the term globalization indicates, human relationships have extended to a global scale.

Most of us depend on others for almost everything necessary to live.

Emphasizing the aspect of “having no choice but to do so” gives a deterministic impression, but actually, listening to Durkheim’s arguments makes one feel that way.

Durkheim tends to emphasize social forces rather than individual subjectivity or will.

One might metaphorically think that, just as dinosaurs became extinct due to changes in the natural environment, it is difficult to go against social tendencies.

However, it should be noted that Durkheim also believed that while it is difficult for an individual alone, society can be transformed by the power of a collective (collective effervescence).

In societies where mechanical solidarity is dominant, the members’ individuality is almost nonexistent, which is an important point.

This is because similarity is emphasized more than differences between people.

Durkheim even described it as “solidarity possible only insofar as individual personalities are entirely absorbed into the collective personality.”

In other words, such a society cannot be maintained if each person strongly possesses individuality.

For example, individuality such as being skilled at hunting or farming might have existed in traditional societies.
However, in modern society, the degree to which individuality such as homosexuality, being non-religious, having flashy hair, or not participating in drinking parties is tolerated is relatively low.
Such individuality tends to be seen as something that breaks the group’s bonds, connections, and solidarity.
(Of course, the tolerance for these elements varies across different societies.)

Just as there are people in modern society who are not tolerant of such individuality, it can be said that our society is maintained to some extent through mechanical solidarity.

The slogan “Be an individual” is popular, but as mentioned earlier, such individuality tends to be subject to criticism and exclusion.

It is easy to understand if we look at celebrities who are criticized by the media over small matters.

No matter how much freedom there is, just as no one would wear a flashy suit to a solemn funeral, many cases are bound by homogeneity.

Of course, there are differences depending on the country and society.

In Japan, the sense of cooperation is strong, as seen in the saying “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”

In the United States, individuality and independence are emphasized, with a strong sense of self-responsibility developed through competition.

In the United Kingdom, tradition, class, and restrained expression tend to be valued.

In any case, the point they share is that norms about “how humans should be” are imposed on individuals.

John Stuart Mill argued that “individual freedom must not infringe on the freedom of others.”

If this balance is lost, social forces may trap people in a “double bind“, so caution is necessary.

Some people might go mad by receiving contradictory commands such as “be individual” and “do not be individual.” The concept of double bind was proposed by G. Bateson.

Although the development of division of labor has indeed increased freedom and individuality, not all freedom or individuality is allowed, and there is an appropriate range that exists in each society.

Why is solidarity described as “mechanical”?

It seems to be because “just like the molecules of an inorganic object, the whole can move only as long as each part does not perform its own distinct motion.”

For example, consider oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen.

If oxygen does not perform its usual function as oxygen but instead acts with individuality and takes on the function of fluorine ,then water cannot remain stable.

(This is merely a metaphor, so we will set aside its real-world feasibility.)

This is because the substance called water requires oxygen to fulfill its fixed role as oxygen.

Allowing freedom or individuality such as wanting to become another element would prevent the inorganic substance H2O as a whole from being maintained.
On the other hand, oxygen can be replaced by another oxygen atom due to its similar function, which is also an important point.
Similarly, in mechanical solidarity, individuals need to be similar, must not be individualistic, and have a high degree of substitutability.

Similarly, it is like when one gear in a machine suddenly develops individuality and causes the entire system to break down.

This is a metaphor for people being closely connected to each other, just as machine parts fit together to perform a single function.

However, even in societies with developed division of labor, individuals are often called “gears in a machine,” so I was confused at that time.

That said, I do not know whether Durkheim actually used the expression “gears in a machine.”

The point is that when I hear “mechanical solidarity,” I tend to associate it with the idea of “gears in a machine.”

For example, jobs such as those for public servants, where individuality is hardly allowed, or simple, repetitive tasks are similar cases.

Nowadays, many jobs are considered easily replaceable, like “gig jobs” or short-term side jobs, while others are hard to replace.

It can be said that jobs demanding creativity, problem-solving abilities, the establishment of complex human relationships, advanced expertise, and strategic thinking are hard to substitute.

Why is solidarity described as “organic”?

Organic substances generally refer to compounds that contain carbon.

Things with life, so to speak, are made up of organic matter.

In contrast, inorganic substances do not contain carbon.

The important difference is that inorganic substances have relatively simple structures, while organic substances tend to have complex structures.

For example, water, salt, and diamond are inorganic, whereas sugars and proteins are organic.

Durkheim sometimes compared society to the body of a human or an animal.
Just as the heart, stomach, brain, and other organs cooperate and work together to sustain the body, society too is sustained by people who are connected through solidarity, each fulfilling their own specific role.
Water, due to its simple structure, cannot perform complex functions.
However, it is precisely because of its simplicity that it becomes replaceable and easily maintainable.

Humans, with their complex structures, are capable of engaging in complex activities and sustaining themselves.
However, it is precisely this complexity of consciousness that also brings the risk of total annihilation through something like nuclear war.
The heart, unlike hydrogen or a mechanical part, cannot be easily replaced.
In the same way, an individual can become like a heart in a group—someone who is difficult to replace.

For example, it is similar to how the collective strength of a soccer team can drop significantly when its star player is removed.

One might think, “Just bring in a new star,” but it is not that simple.

The combination and coordination within the team are based on accumulated interactions, forming a complex ability that the players internalize almost bodily.

References

Recommended Readings

Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣

Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」

About the Japanese version of this article

This English article is a translated and slightly adapted version of my original Japanese article published at [URL]. Both versions were written by the same author.